Firefox's massive overhaul moves to beta

No, this is wrong. From v. 57 on only webextensions are accepted/installable in Firefox. Hence, all add-ons marked as compatible with v. 57 must be webextensions. This is also confirmed in this Ghacks article.

Again, this is simply wrong. The add-ons in that list are webextensions and I'm using several of them without any problems. Examples are SmartHTTPS (revived) and Cookie Autodelete.

 

I would want to replace Self-Destructing Cookies add-on but Firefox prevents instllation of this unverified add-on ... how did you get around this? Maybe you are not on release version?

 

webextensions were only valid for the current session (firefox 52 beta/aurora, forgot) - after session was closed all gone. with current final it is not possible to install - it was a matter of conversion and it seems still a matter of conversion that real webextesion are not usable without conversion - @summerheat.
have you investigated into source code of any extension? you will read "@jetpack" and as i pointed out jetpack is NOT webextension.


mozilla is killing the jetpack sdk
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/201...ity-milestones/comment-page-1/#comment-223568

https://developer.mozilla.org/de/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Porting_a_Google_Chrome_extension
https://developer.mozilla.org/de/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Comparison_with_the_Add-on_SDK
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Temporary_Installation_in_Firefox (the restart reason)

unless there is no official build v57, only servo dev releases - those are important, not any build from the archive server
https://download.servo.org/
servo is only available as 64-bit! (windows/Linux)

#edit
to read https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases

background
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Embedded_WebExtensions

the so called webexts are not natively usable and limited by now.

 

I don't know what you're talking about. Source?

Yes, I have just now for Cookie Autodelete and SmartHTTPS - and they do not contain @jetpack. Besides, the AMO sites for both add-ons explicitly state that they are written as webextensions. Furthermore, add-ons contained in that list above have a "Permissions" field on the right side of the "Add to Firefox" button on AMO - and that's a typical characteristic for webextensions. Legacy add-ons have that field with an exclamation mark, and if you click it you get: "Please note this add-on uses legacy technology, which gives it access to all browser functions and data without requesting your permission."

 

Yes, I am. I think you have to set xpinstall.signatures.required to false.

 

Yes I agree. Let's also hope that they will soon release a new browser engine, and that multi-process will not make it as RAM hungry as Chrome, Vivaldi and Opera.

 

v54 will introduce the sandbox (level 2 max at the moment) based on electrolysis.

 

What does level 2 max mean? Currently the tabs in Firefox v53 with e10s enabled are "low integrity" (viewed in Process Explorer).

 

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox

 

validating...
while
https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/smart-https/
is jetpack
is
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/smart-https-revived/
truly based as webextension
(anyhow forcing https is futile, every proper set up server redirects to http -> httpS) otherwise a bookmark helps!

same for cookie autodelete
its a 99% translation from chrome to firefox (md5 hashes are same except manifest) (was not signed)

what i tried to say - many of those 23xx extension are based on jetpack, there are not many real webextensions. compatibility to v57 means it would be possible but truly it is not, its assumption it should work. as gorhill pointed out he is using the jetpack wrapper to use very few webextension commands.

 

Sigh ... finally

You still fail to provide any evidence for your claims. What I wrote is not only confirmed by Ghacks, as mentioned above, but also by Sören Hentzschel in a detailed blog post. And Sören is a guy who knows exactly what's going on at Mozilla, and he is an add-on author himself.

He didn't say that. In the comments for uB0 v. 1.12.0 he wrote:

This doesn't mean that all webextensions are hybrid versions. This is what you seem to believe.

 

Sören is a pure fanboy with pink glasses on. weather he is well informed or compose extensions i dont take most of his words for real. i have wasted too much time in the camp. and as i wrote - v57 is not ready yet so its assumption it should work. download and look into xpi and look for install.rdf -> jetpack. they may also a "hybrid" like gorhill explaind but that api is very limited for now. and most of the present webextensions are ported from chrome. people will transpose more from chrome store if will be such easy - and mozilla has benefits from that database, they never would walk that way without chrome store. but firefox is not able to use crx files, still xpi file but with same content - "we sell same wine with another sticky, but ours is better" ofc

thee is a long thread to read
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3025513

and in special for you, what i wrote:
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/201...ity-milestones/comment-page-2/#comment-223677

and thats more true than Sören words

 

Interesting, but not needed with SBIE. I have also disabled the sandbox in Opera and Vivaldi without any problems. BTW, what about the multi-process FF version, are you guys seeing a lot more RAM usage?

 

Yep. and i don't fully understand Electrolysis yet, seems it is not based on open tabs, i opened many , but only 3 processes shows up.

 

Weird, because you would think that this should normally reduce RAM usage, because it's the ridiculous amounts of processes that make Chrome/Opera/Vivaldi use a lot of RAM.

 

2 processes used around 300+Mb each and the other one only 50mb. it is FFv54beta portable.

 

mozilla will spread tabs to processes based on amount cores. core with less tabs will get next tab - if firefox process on core fails all tabs on this process are lost.
e10s is only the description for multiprocess. ofc this way round will use less ram for same amount tabs like chrome and this is friendly to older machines. but its different from chromium. at least 2gig are minimium, better are 4gig, any machine 10 years old can use 4gig. i prefer the chromium solution but i will see how firefox 57 will finally perform.

 

There is a setting in about:config

dom.ipc.processCount

Entering a number here will tell Firefox the maximum number of individual tab processes it can start. For instance I have it set to 16, so when I open multiple tabs I see a separate process for each one.

 

Thanks , i missed that one

 

Yep updated it, feel it faster than the previous beta.

 

Any issues with stability or addon compatibility?

 

I haven't had stability problems. Regarding addons, some which are listed as not compatible with multiprocess work fine and others don't. For instance Calomel SSL Validation and Grab & Drag are both listed as incompatible, but Calomel works fine on FF v53.02 while Grab & Drag doesn't. It's easy enough to turn off multiprocess if it has negative impacts.

 

With how many tabs open? I often have 40 or more tabs open, so that's why Vivaldi isn't an option, at least not for general browsing.